Deciding Between SF-6Dv2 Health States: A Think-Aloud Study of Decision-Making Strategies Used in Discrete Choice Experiments.

Broderick, L; Bjorner, JB; Lauher-Charest, M; White, MK; Kosinski, M; Mulhern, B; Brazier, J

Deciding Between SF-6Dv2 Health States: A Think-Aloud Study of Decision-Making Strategies Used in Discrete Choice Experiments.

Broderick, L Bjorner, JB Lauher-Charest, M White, MK Kosinski, M Mulhern, B

Brazier, J

Permalink

Publisher:: Elsevier
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Value Health, 2022, 25, (12), pp. 2034-2043
Issue Date:: 2022-12

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (723.64 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Broderick, L
dc.contributor.author	Bjorner, JB
dc.contributor.author	Lauher-Charest, M
dc.contributor.author	White, MK
dc.contributor.author	Kosinski, M
dc.contributor.author	Mulhern, B https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3656-8063
dc.contributor.author	Brazier, J
dc.date.accessioned	2023-06-24T05:20:20Z
dc.date.available	2022-07-31
dc.date.available	2023-06-24T05:20:20Z
dc.date.issued	2022-12
dc.identifier.citation	Value Health, 2022, 25, (12), pp. 2034-2043
dc.identifier.issn	1098-3015
dc.identifier.issn	1524-4733
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/170856
dc.description.abstract	OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to gain insight into decision-making strategies individuals used when evaluating pairs of SF-6Dv2 health states in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). METHODS: This qualitative, cross-sectional, noninterventional study asked participants to use a think-aloud approach to compare SF-6Dv2 health states in DCEs. Thematic analysis focused on comprehension and cognitive strategies used to compare health states and make decisions. RESULTS: Participants (N = 40) used 3 main strategies when completing DCEs: (1) trading, (2) reinterpretation, and (3) relying on previous experience. Trading was the most common strategy, used by everyone at least once, and involved prioritizing key attributes, such as preferring a health state with significant depression but no bodily pain. Reinterpretation was used by 17 participants and involved reconstructing health states by changing underlying assumptions (eg, rationalizing selecting a health state with significant pain because they could take pain medications). Finally, some (n = 13) relied on previous experience when making decisions on some choice tasks. Participants with experience dealing with pain, for instance, prioritized health states with the least impact in this dimension. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitatively evaluating the decision-making strategies used in DCEs allows researchers to evaluate whether the tasks and attributes are interpreted accurately. The findings from this study add to the understanding of the generation of SF-6Dv2 health utility weights and the validity of these weights (e.g., reinterpreting health states could undermine the validity of DCEs and utility weights), and the overall usefulness of the SF-6Dv2. The methodology described in this study can and should be carried forth in valuing other health utility measures, not just the SF-6Dv2.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Elsevier
dc.relation.ispartof	Value Health
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.jval.2022.07.018
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	1117 Public Health and Health Services, 1402 Applied Economics
dc.subject.classification	Health Policy & Services
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Cross-Sectional Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Pain
dc.subject.mesh	Choice Behavior
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Pain
dc.subject.mesh	Cross-Sectional Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Choice Behavior
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Cross-Sectional Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Pain
dc.subject.mesh	Choice Behavior
dc.title	Deciding Between SF-6Dv2 Health States: A Think-Aloud Study of Decision-Making Strategies Used in Discrete Choice Experiments.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	25
utslib.location.activity	United States
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services
utslib.for	1402 Applied Economics
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHERE - Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2023-06-24T05:20:19Z
pubs.issue	12
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	25
utslib.citation.issue	12

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to gain insight into decision-making strategies individuals used when evaluating pairs of SF-6Dv2 health states in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). METHODS: This qualitative, cross-sectional, noninterventional study asked participants to use a think-aloud approach to compare SF-6Dv2 health states in DCEs. Thematic analysis focused on comprehension and cognitive strategies used to compare health states and make decisions. RESULTS: Participants (N = 40) used 3 main strategies when completing DCEs: (1) trading, (2) reinterpretation, and (3) relying on previous experience. Trading was the most common strategy, used by everyone at least once, and involved prioritizing key attributes, such as preferring a health state with significant depression but no bodily pain. Reinterpretation was used by 17 participants and involved reconstructing health states by changing underlying assumptions (eg, rationalizing selecting a health state with significant pain because they could take pain medications). Finally, some (n = 13) relied on previous experience when making decisions on some choice tasks. Participants with experience dealing with pain, for instance, prioritized health states with the least impact in this dimension. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitatively evaluating the decision-making strategies used in DCEs allows researchers to evaluate whether the tasks and attributes are interpreted accurately. The findings from this study add to the understanding of the generation of SF-6Dv2 health utility weights and the validity of these weights (e.g., reinterpreting health states could undermine the validity of DCEs and utility weights), and the overall usefulness of the SF-6Dv2. The methodology described in this study can and should be carried forth in valuing other health utility measures, not just the SF-6Dv2.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/170856